Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. At about 2:00 pm on 23rd August, 2002 the accused were produced in court after the expiry of two days of the police remand and they were further remanded to judicial custody. However as per the record on 23rd August, 2002 the accused were again taken to the hospital at 3:20 pm, without any permission from the court, since as per the learned counsel, procedural requirement necessitated that samples for DNA should be taken before an MM. As mentioned in the MLC, the accused persons were brought by HC Prakash Pradhan PW-

77. He further deposed that he could not get DNA in the vaginal swab and the post mortem blood, thus if any manipulation was done or any contamination of the samples was shielded by PW-29, then he would have detected DNA from these samples as well. The procedure followed by the expert PW-29 is thorough and unimpeachable, clearly supporting his findings and no doubt can be caste on his version and report. PW-29 had also deposed that the biological fluid present on the source of exhibit i.e. clothes of deceased Sarika did not match the source of blood sample of Munish, the implications of which shall be dealt with hereinafter.

78. A perusal of the procedure for collection & forwarding of the samples for DNA fingerprinting analysis provided on the website of CDFD proved as EX. PW 29/DA clearly stipulates that the blood samples (2-3 ml) can be collected in the sterile blood collection material (EDTA vials). These samples should then be sent in ice in a thermos flask either by a messenger or through courier, so as to reach CDFD within 72 hours after collection and as per the deposition of PW-20 all the necessary precautions were complied with and the samples were duly deposited within 72 hours with the CDFD. Thus the inevitable inference is that the procedure had been complied with and no tampering or contamination of the samples can be inferred in any manner.

79. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that even though the pulandas of the DNA samples of the appellants, were deposited in the office of CDFD on 26th August, 2002, however the DNA typing report was prepared only after a lapse of more than 1 year on 15th October, 2003. Thus it is contended that there is a good chance that the DNA samples would have disintegrated or could have got contaminated during the period. However, it is a scientifically accepted fact that DNA‟s can be preserved for a very long period of time, if the proper preservation procedures are followed. Thus the fact that PW-29 analyzed the samples after a period of one year does not affect its validity and analysis. In the case of Kali Ram v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cr.L.J. 1625 (Bom) it was held that Semen stains on the clothes can be found from five to 18 years, and that it is not proper to say that the examination of sperm and semen done after 4 months was valueless. It is also not the case of the appellant that PW-29 had any personal grudge as against the appellant, Vinay due to which reason he would have falsely implicated him in the matter.